The team is capped out, has almost 0 expendable assets to improve and a growing number of pundits STILL have them on the outside of the playoff picture in. I honestly can't wrap my head around why people want to keep trudging on with this roster.

Pointing to teams like Indiana, or Memphis, or whoever else as "proof" that we can turn this team into a contender is incredibly nonsensical. Completely different scenarios. Different mix of players making different amounts, different assets to improve, different cap space, different coaches, different seasons, etc.

Beyond that, from a macro view... why would Colangelo get run out of his job (and so publicly none the less) if Leiweke was planning on spending the next 3-4 years plowing along with the core that he put together? It doesn't make sense. And it shouldn't. BC put together a bad team, making a ton of money, and Ujiri was brought in to clean up the mess. Not to tinker around the fringes of it and swapping out players 8-12 on the roster.

And is it true that star players become available every year on the trade market?

Outside of the three recent players (Anthony, Howard & Paul) who forced their way to a specific location (which eliminates the Raptors as a landing spot)... How often do all NBA performers get traded? Pau Gasol is literally the only one I can think of from recent times. It certainly doesn't happen "every season".

But even if hypothetically an all NBA type player was made available... what normally do teams want in return for these types of guys? It's young prospects! Lots and lots of young prospects! Not Landry Fields, Terrence Ross and DJ Augustin. Good grief.

The team is capped out, has almost 0 expendable assets to improve and a growing number of pundits STILL have them on the outside of the playoff picture in. I honestly can't wrap my head around why people want to keep trudging on with this roster.

Pointing to teams like Indiana, or Memphis, or whoever else as "proof" that we can turn this team into a contender is incredibly nonsensical. Completely different scenarios. Different mix of players making different amounts, different assets to improve, different cap space, different coaches, different seasons, etc.

Beyond that, from a macro view... why would Colangelo get run out of his job (and so publicly none the less) if Leiweke was planning on spending the next 3-4 years plowing along with the core that he put together? It doesn't make sense. And it shouldn't. BC put together a bad team, making a ton of money, and Ujiri was brought in to clean up the mess. Not to tinker around the fringes of it and swapping out players 8-12 on the roster.

I can't wait until they start tearing this thing down.

This is what I thought initially as well (and I was also drooling for the tear-down).

But really, TL firing BC doesn't implicitly say anything about what TL thinks should happen with the roster. All it says for sure is that he didn't want to go forward with Colangelo.

They want to get a ton of assets back for Gay and Lowry, but they also want to tank immediately. Riddle me this: why would any team trade significant assets for Gay/Lowry when they're not even sure how their current roster is going to perform or what its ceiling is?

There's a reason most trades like this happen during the trade deadline and it's not because GMs spend the first 50 games twiddling their thumbs.

I come back from vacation and miss this epic thread of talking in circles.....

One thing I never quite get is how the "anti-tankers" assume that everyone in favour of moving Gay/DD/Lowry/etc not-named JV is that we are willing to get nothing in return and that all of their trades are "trying to make the team better" yet all of ours are not. Making the team better isn't overnight, and the returns of any trade may take 2-3 years to come to fruition. Sometimes you have to take a step backwards before you can move forward. In a financial sense, we cannot move forward as we are up against the cap.

In a basketball sense, we are likely to be somewhere between 7th-10th this year with this current roster. By the time JV develops into what we all want him to be, Gay and Lowry will have to be re-signed or moved. I personally would rather we make that move (trading Gay/DD/Lowry) now, while the best draft class is upon us and not in a few years where we could end up with another 2006 (Bargnani!!) draft class.

They want to get a ton of assets back for Gay and Lowry, but they also want to tank immediately. Riddle me this: why would any team trade significant assets for Gay/Lowry when they're not even sure how their current roster is going to perform or what its ceiling is?

There's a reason most trades like this happen during the trade deadline and it's not because GMs spend the first 50 games twiddling their thumbs.

GM's have a very short shelf life. When they sense the end is near, they make a "splashy" move in hopes of appeasing the owners and the fans with a short-lived playoff run. A very recent example would be BC trading for Rudy Gay. Teams that have spent years in the lottery are more likely to trade away the unknown potential (draft pick) for an established player than hope for internal development. Developing players takes time and patience. Most GMs don't have the goodwill banked that allow them to be as patient as they should be.

They want to get a ton of assets back for Gay and Lowry, but they also want to tank immediately. Riddle me this: why would any team trade significant assets for Gay/Lowry when they're not even sure how their current roster is going to perform or what its ceiling is?

There's a reason most trades like this happen during the trade deadline and it's not because GMs spend the first 50 games twiddling their thumbs.

I think what happens is you put your perceptions of what tankers are thinking and create a story based on that.

I don't think tankers are expecting a 'ton' of assets back for Gay and Lowry. If Gay + Lowry were worth a ton, why would the team need to tank in the first place?? What they are expecting though is something more than 2 players who are only worth their expiring contracts (ie. CV and Stuckey).

What they'd like to see is a trade that leads to 'losing now' but 'winning in the future'. eg. something like CV + Stuckey + picks for Gay.

But riddle me this: if teams aren't willing to trade for Gay and Lowry, because they believe there is a legitimate chance their team may be better off without adding them, and therefore they aren't very valuable, why would one expect this team to be good with them? Just like you claim 'tankers' can't have their cake and eat it to, anti-tankers can't either.

Either Gay and Lowry are good, and therefore valuable. Or they aren't good and therefore not valuable. Or they are somewhere in between both of those.

Which is it?

You are quickly becoming a stronghold of narratives and framing arguments. Yeah its great that they fit your belief system, unfortuantely they hardly make good arguments.

I come back from vacation and miss this epic thread of talking in circles.....

One thing I never quite get is how the "anti-tankers" assume that everyone in favour of moving Gay/DD/Lowry/etc not-named JV is that we are willing to get nothing in return and that all of their trades are "trying to make the team better" yet all of ours are not. Making the team better isn't overnight, and the returns of any trade may take 2-3 years to come to fruition. Sometimes you have to take a step backwards before you can move forward. In a financial sense, we cannot move forward as we are up against the cap.

In a basketball sense, we are likely to be somewhere between 7th-10th this year with this current roster. By the time JV develops into what we all want him to be, Gay and Lowry will have to be re-signed or moved. I personally would rather we make that move (trading Gay/DD/Lowry) now, while the best draft class is upon us and not in a few years where we could end up with another 2006 (Bargnani!!) draft class.

This is literally what I just pointed out about wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Good deals for Gay/DD/Lowry are not available right now. We saw the Pistons offer. I swear some of you tankers are under the impression that Ujiri is being offered unprotected 1sts and prospects for our vets... this is just simply not true otherwise he would take the deal he's not an idiot.

This isn't NBA2K where you can make a trade whenever you feel like regardless of whether the other team wants to do a deal at that particular time. Both teams have to be comfortable with the idea of making drastic changes to their roster and team outlook.

I think what happens is you put your perceptions of what tankers are thinking and create a story based on that.

I don't think tankers are expecting a 'ton' of assets back for Gay and Lowry. If Gay + Lowry were worth a ton, why would the team need to tank in the first place?? What they are expecting though is something more than 2 players who are only worth their expiring contracts (ie. CV and Stuckey).

What they'd like to see is a trade that leads to 'losing now' but 'winning in the future'. eg. something like CV + Stuckey + picks for Gay.

But riddle me this: if teams aren't willing to trade for Gay and Lowry, because they believe there is a legitimate chance their team may be better off without adding them, and therefore they aren't very valuable, why would one expect this team to be good with them? Just like you claim 'tankers' can't have their cake and eat it to, anti-tankers can't either.

Either Gay and Lowry are good, and therefore valuable. Or they aren't good and therefore not valuable. Or they are somewhere in between both of those.

Which is it?

You are quickly becoming a stronghold of narratives and framing arguments. Yeah its great that they fit your belief system, unfortuantely they hardly make good arguments.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. One team that has been brought up several times is Charlotte. Obviously if you're Charlotte, you're not stupid and you realize that acquiring Gay would make your team better. The question is are you willing to COMMIT to moving in that direction? You're not sure how your pieces will fit yet, and a deal like that could either make you a playoff team or, if guys don't gel, put you on that 9-11th seed treadmill that you really don't want to be on.

Again this is why teams make those kind of moves at the deadline because after 50+ games it's pretty clear how good your team is, how much your prospects have developed and how well guys fit. You can determine whether you want to acquire a veteran for that extra push or not.

As you can see, only 12% of trades are made in the first 3 months of the season (and I'd assume --- I do not know or claim to know --- that most of these are minor deals). Teams typically do most transactions in the weeks leading up to the deadline and the offseason.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. One team that has been brought up several times is Charlotte. Obviously if you're Charlotte, you're not stupid and you realize that acquiring Gay would make your team better. The question is are you willing to COMMIT to moving in that direction? You're not sure how your pieces will fit yet, and a deal like that could either make you a playoff team or, if guys don't gel, put you on that 9-11th seed treadmill that you really don't want to be on.

Again this is why teams make those kind of moves at the deadline because after 50+ games it's pretty clear how good your team is, how much your prospects have developed and how well guys fit. You can determine whether you want to acquire a veteran for that extra push or not.

As you can see, only 12% of trades are made in the first 3 months of the season (and I'd assume --- I do not know or claim to know --- that most of these are minor deals). Teams typically do most transactions in the weeks leading up to the deadline and the offseason.